The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville - Pot-pourri

88 II.xxxi.2–xxxi.8 Isidore of Seville
, that is, ‘opposites’ (oppositum) because
they seem to stand opposing one another as if face to
face, as contraries. Still, not all things that are opposed
(opponere) tooneanother are contraries, but all things
are opposed by a contrary. 38
The first type of contrary is called diverse (diversus)
according to Cicero(Topics 35), because these are set
against one another as such complete opposites that they
have no part in the things to which they are opposed, as
‘wisdom’ to ‘stupidity.’ 2.Thistypeisdividedintothree
species: some have a middle (medium); some are without
amiddle; and some have a middle but are nevertheless
without a term for it, unless each of the contraries creates
atermforit.‘White’ and ‘black’ have a middle term,
because often ‘pale’ or ‘dark’ is found between them. 3.
Those contraries are without a middle whenever only
one of the two opposites occurs at one time, as ‘health’
or ‘sickness.’ There is no middle of these. Then, those
contraries of which the middle has no term – as ‘happy,
unhappy,’ have the middle, ‘not happy.’
The secondtypeofcontrariesisofrelatives(relativus),
which are opposed to one another in such a way that
they are compared with themselves, as ‘double, single.’
4. Only this type of opposites is referred to itself, for
there is no ‘greater’ unless it is compared with ‘lesser,’
and no ‘single’ unless with ‘double.’ Now one relative is
opposed to another in such a way that the thing that is
put in opposition may either be part of that to which
it is opposed, or be related to it in some way. Hence
‘half’ is opposed to ‘double’ – and is the middle term of
that ‘double’ – but is so opposed to it that it is part of
that to which it is opposed. 39 5.Thus‘small’ is opposed to
‘great’ in such a way that a specific small thing is ‘small’ in
comparison with the great thing to which it is opposed.
The oppositions mentioned above called contraries are
so opposed to one another that they are not part of the
things to which they are opposed nor related to them in
any way. Indeed ‘iniquity’ is a contrary of ‘justice’ such
that iniquity is not a part of that same justice, nor is
iniquity related to it.
6. The third type of opposites is possession (habitus)
or lack (orbatio). Cicero names this type ‘privation’ (privatio),
because it shows that someone possessed (habere)
something of which he has been deprived (privare). Of
this type there are three species: the first is ‘in the thing’
(in re), the second ‘in the place’ (in loco), the third
‘at the appropriate time’ (in tempore congruo). ‘In the
thing,’ as ‘blindness,’ ‘sight.’ ‘In the place,’ as the place
of blindness and sight is ‘in the eyes.’ ‘At the appropriate
time,’ as we do not speak of an infant as ‘toothless’
when his brief life so far has denied him teeth. Indeed,
he has not been ‘deprived’ of teeth that have not yet
erupted.
7. Thefourth type of contrary sets up an opposition
‘from an affirmation and a negation’ (ex confirmatione
et negatione), as “Socrates disputes, Socrates does not
dispute.” This differs from the ones above because those
can be spoken singly, whereas these cannot be spoken of
except jointly. This fourth type of contrary has aroused
much controversy among logicians, and by them is called
‘intensely opposite’ (valde oppositum), since indeed it
takes no mediating term (tertium). 8.For some of these
other oppositions can have a mediating term, as, among
the contraries, ‘black’ and ‘white.’ The mediating term
of this contrary is neither ‘white’ nor ‘black,’ but ‘dark’
or ‘pale.’ This is the case among relatives also, as ‘many’
and ‘few.’ Of this the mediating term is neither ‘many’
nor ‘few,’ but ‘a middling number.’ In ‘possession’ or
‘lack,’ as ‘sight’ and ‘blindness,’ the mediating term is
neither ‘blindness’ nor ‘sight,’ but ‘weak eyes.’ But this
one – ‘he reads, he does not read’ – has no mediating
term at all.
38 The apparent (proximate?) source, Martianus Capella, is
clearer: “Not all things that are opposed to one another are contraries,
but all contraries are opposites.”
39 “Half . . . is the middle term of that double” is nonsense; the
(proximate?) source in Martianus Capella reads “is the half of what
is its double.”